well, nice to see this brought all the rm chair politicians out, again. yippy ....

@everyone bitching about guns in my country; Fix the people FIRST, then worry about the weapons. Just banning one type of weapon isn't going to stop some ass hole from STILL going out and hurting/killing large groups of people at a time, Or have none of you heard of Improvised Explosive Devices and other such home made murder tools one can make with bewildering ease.

One thing I have to say to this guy is if parents knew violent video games caused problems for kids then we wouldn't be having this discussion because you could label any parent that buys call of duty for their kid a bad parent.

The USA had about 12.000 gun related homicides in 2009. In Japan it was a national scandal that in 2007, 22 people were killed by guns. Do the Japanese play a shitload of video games? Don't bother, that one was rhetorical.It's guns. If you want to defend them, at least be honest with yourself and everybody else. By the way, the US government seems to be as corrupt as ever, so if you'd like to defend yourself against The Man in a well trained militia (that's the part of the second amendment everybody seems to forget, often) now is as good as ever.

And btw, there really should be no discussion about children playing violent games or too much video games for that matter.

Lunar Templar:well, nice to see this brought all the rm chair politicians out, again. yippy ....

@everyone bitching about guns in my country; Fix the people FIRST, then worry about the weapons. Just banning one type of weapon isn't going to stop some ass hole from STILL going out and hurting/killing large groups of people at a time, Or have none of you heard of Improvised Explosive Devices and other such home made murder tools one can make with bewildering ease.

Hey, I live in the same country as you so don't get all high and mighty. As I've said before your purposefully ignoring the point that easy (keyword here: EASY) access to firearms makes the possibility of mass violence that much more likely. People who say 'oh well you can't stab someone' or 'oh well you can make a bomb' fail to realize that is actually very difficult to do and most of the psychotics who go on killing sprees lack the focus to do anything beyond shoot a bunch of people. Every attempted bombing in the US in the last few years has failed because the attempted bomber was apprehended or they screwed up the bomb and it didn't work. As for the other possible weapons it's a lot harder to kill someone with a knife than a high powered rifle or handgun - you actually have a more than 1% chance of succeeding in fighting back in that case. Also excuse the fuck out of us for discussing politics in the wake of bad shit happening, it's not like a democracy is supposed to be able to let the citizens get involved but maybe you're right: the people have about as much effect on legislation as someone using a teddy bear to stop a bulldozer.

So even if we don't do anything about it it's better to get people talking and concerned about things going on then continuing to be the apathetic dipshits that we are.

It#s a shame he's doing this in hope of confirmation, because otherwise this would be a good opportunity to move towards some sort of conclusitivity.

Since he is biased, to undo that he needs to also command the Academy to conduct a study on whether having access and playing/shooting with actual guns leads to an increase in violence. There are many people who are under the belief that possessing and using firearms as a hobby is no worse than watching violent cartoons.

So I guess I'm saying that before we look at the violent effects of videogames we need to look at the violent effects of actual weaponry

Perhaps the honourable Senator should instead consider an investigation into the physiological effects of bullets on the flesh, organs and inner workings of childrens' bodies as they pass through them at high speed.

Violent Video Games are the current boogeyman, like rock music was for previous generations. In the wake of a tradgedy like this, politicians want to be seen doing something, so kicking the most recent boogie man is the way to go for them. We've done this song and dance before. Hopefully intelligence will overcome fear and both recent backlash attempts at tighter gun control, and the whole "blame media" (especially video games) will disappear quickly. Especially seeing as they are scapegoats for the more contreversial societal issues that are actually responsible.

I'll also be honest, while I don't believe the world will end tomorrow, a decent number of people do believe something will happen. I kind of wish something cool would happen (albiet not an end of the human race) but it will just be another boring day. It's my theory however that the kid doing these shootings was probably someone who believed the world was going to end and freaked out over it. Sort of like what people feared from "Millenium Madness" back with Y2K, except in this case and situations like the mass slashing attack in China, we're actually seeing results. I actually recommend staying inside tomorrow, not because of any supernatural hocus pocus, or meteors hitting the earth or anything (and honestly if humanity is going to end that way, nothing you can do about it, so why worry?), but because of crazy people.

On the conspiricy theory front for those who must have one, I'm favoring the whole "liberal brainwashing" angle that was present going back as far as Columbine. The basic theory being that these kinds of school shootings are done to create public panic, weaken the gun lobby and sentiments for individual freedom, and cause people to sell out their freedoms for security, in a way big goverment democrats actually support. Now this is a nutso conspiricy theory and not one I'm actually selling, but it's oddly plausible especially if you start looking at certain patterns of behavior, especially in this case. Politicians like Obama himself were unusually prepped and ready to go, even stopping by to make personal apperances when clearing the schedule for disasters can be a chore in most cases no matter how sympathetic. Not to mention some rather hokey occurances like the teenage/child shooters always killing themselves, and things like the sabotages hard drive which is somehow so badly wiped/damaged that federal authorities who have been able to get data from terrorist hard drives after bombs have gone off can't recover the data. A lot of this started back with columbine when the shooters in that case who "offed themselves" were reported as having been cornered in the school library by the authorities, followed by some initial reports that they were found dead "execution style" which were never repeted. There are other tidbits but those are some of the big ones for anyone who wants some imagination fuel (unconnected to the point of this article). To be honest I'm not going to even consider conspiricy theories until we have a third big incident with these kinds of huge information gaps/matching the pattern. Once is fine, twice is coincidence, three times is enemy action and all that.

Ultimately, I think it should be guidance, but, I think as he puts it, a lot of people aren't entirely aware of the content of these games exactly, and educating them on exactly what they're allowing their children to view is not a bad thing.

Lunar Templar:well, nice to see this brought all the rm chair politicians out, again. yippy ....

@everyone bitching about guns in my country; Fix the people FIRST, then worry about the weapons. Just banning one type of weapon isn't going to stop some ass hole from STILL going out and hurting/killing large groups of people at a time, Or have none of you heard of Improvised Explosive Devices and other such home made murder tools one can make with bewildering ease.

Why cant you do both?

I whole hardily agree that removing the guns is a "Treating the symptom" kind of solution, but why cant we also treat the symptom.

Yeah the end goal to not have the crazies, but cant we also remove the crazies access to tools designed for killing (that is the difference between improvised weapons and designated weapons)?

Furthermore how come there is a "its the person who killed them not the gun!" but when someone used a gun to defend themselves it is "Its the gun that saved them!". I am sorry you cant have it both ways. If guns made the difference in the defense you cant deny they made a difference in the offence.

Ultimately, I think it should be guidance, but, I think as he puts it, a lot of people aren't entirely aware of the content of these games exactly, and educating them on exactly what they're allowing their children to view is not a bad thing.

Well said.

Kinda makes a change from all the knee-jerk reactions in this thread - from both sides.

Honestly, I kind of support this action.I mean the worst that could happen it that video games get a harsher rating. Games like Black Ops/Far Cry 3 and other violent games will not be allowed in the hands of anyone under a certain age. And honestly, I think that's a good thing.

You minds can be influenced by the violence experienced in these games. And would it truly be a loss that while playing COD online that you didn't have someone in a squeaky voice yelling offensive things about your mother?

That's just my opinion, it's a grey area when you consider the difference between oppression and freedom of media to audiences.

As long as the subject of Guns isn't changed to Video games. I"m sure many would prefer to pin these things on gamers rather than pistol-packing firearm owners.

They dont were I come from because guns are not widely available. Getting a gun is a long and hard process no matter if you want it illegally. It is an issue with supply. You got to many selling guns.

Same goes for most of the rest of the EU countries.

This is a fairly american problem in that your guns are there in huge supply.

Sounds like a similar debate to one I had recently. Draech, you are right. But some people are too stubborn to admit they're wrong and will just yell the same things back at you against the obvious. It's a shame it happens over there but if the general population is willing to suffer through monthly massacres for their right to bare arms then so be it. Let them be stubborn.

It's a shame things have to escalate before they'll finally submit. I just feel sorry for that particular country, and am glad I don't live there.

I picked up on the use of the word "Children" once or twice in that article and, while no politician would ever come out and say it, he is closer to the root of the issue here and that's PARENTING!!!

If children are playing "violent" video-games like Call of Duty, Manhunt, Hitman etc. why not ask the parents what the jumping monkey-fuck they were thinking? The games have age-restrictions that are clearly-marked on the box and, in Britain at least, have content-guides on the back, which can inform you as to what the game contains. If you buy alcohol or tobacco for someone who is underage then you can be prosecuted and I am damn sure this can also happen if you buy little Johnny an 18-rated game for his 9th birthday!

Sadly this argument will never penetrate the mind of a parent because they always throw up the "I'm a parent [and you're not]..." deflector-shield, which is the one-size-fits-all cop-out line, not unlike the "God moves in mysterious ways" excuse for when people with brains try and reason with those without them. Also, no politician would ever dream of daring to blame the parents any more than they'd try to blame God because everyone knows that parents are as infallible as God, right?

No!

The truth is that most parents just flat-out refuse to accept that it is THEIR responsibility and will blame everything and everyone under the sun rather then themselves for their kids bad behaviour and woe betide anyone who tries to call them out on their BS!

Anyway, who are you trying to kid Mr. Rockerfeller Skank? You use the Sandy Hook tragedy as a reason to look into the effect violent video-games have on Children and yet you forget that the killer in this instance was an adult. I put it to you that what you are really doing is hoping to score political-points off the back of this hideous massacre by picking on a convenient scapegoat! I am pleased you are calling for a study rather than outright blaming the games but when it was an ADULT who killed CHILDREN, it does seem to be a bit irrelevant to talk about the effect of games on children.

Correct me on this, but isn't most violent media rated above K16-K18 or M18?Like... Children shouldn't be playing the to begin with... I think what study America should fund is "How bad parenting and lack of discipline affects children's mental health"... Because I got this feeling that America wants to generally blame the bad behavior/violent behavior to the media instead parents taking responsibility over their children.

I was grown up free with no parent looking after what I watch or play. I had Doom on my first computer at the age of... 3 or 4... I watched horror/gore/splatter/violent movies with my eldest brother regularry (Basically only interaction I had with him). But I talked with my parents of the things I saw, they helped me to understand the things I saw. Also there was 3 rules they engraved to my head: 'Do not Lie', 'Violence solves nothing', 'If you have problems talk to us or someone'.

Now I am academically graduated in philosophy. I am a pacifist, pro-free media and pro-free reign parenting + anti-bullying advocate.

Many issue could be solved when problems with mental health are taken care of early.

Some people would say "Why are you angry? They are just calling for a study, if you're so sure, why are you afraid?"

Well, the fact is that this guy and the government at large will only say what the people want to hear right now. What they want to hear is "This wasn't my fault. I can continue to mock mental illness and brush actual problems under the carpet so I don't have to face the reality of such things. I can continue to keep my guns."

No, if there's to be a study, it must be undertaken by people as far away from the government and other influences as possible. This will not be it. We have already seen recently that given the opportunity, people will twist the results to produce a more popular opinion.

Gilhelmi:Video Games will not make you into a murder, they take a person (predisposed to murder) and make them a MASS murder.

You do not deserve a civil response, but you'll get one because the forum rules dictate it must be so.

The treatment is simple. Stop raising your children in a dysfunctional society, which predisposes them towards committing murder, let alone MASS murder. But if you think banning violent video games is even remotely anywhere near the top of the long, long laundry list of changes that have to occur in order to make that happen, then I'm sorry to break this to you but in the grand scheme of things your personal problem with violent video games simply doesn't rate.

What saddens me most about this tragedy is that fact that while people are lining up round the block to exploit it in order to tell others what can and cannot be done, what is or what isn't permissible, if everyone, everyone for even second all together stopped pointing fingers at other people and instead asked themselves what they could do, what they could change about their own behaviour, and if they applied and stuck with those changes, then perhaps we'd fill less coffins with kids.

People got stabbed so that makes gun control useless?In china, 22 injured with a knife, no deaths.In Japan Akihabara with a knife, four deaths.In Japan Osaka with a knife, eight deaths.In America with a gun, twenty-six deaths.

My problem is that any kind of initiative to remove the rights of citizens to own guns is an example of hamstringing the majority in order to limit the potential damage of the minority. Most of these arguments are framed such that the only two choices are "remove all firearms from the civilian populace, end America's gun culture, etc." or "gun control doesn't solve anything, criminals will get them illegally, they would just knife each other if they didn't have guns".

As with most things in life, the answer is in moderation, an emphasis on personal responsibility and understanding the consequences of one's actions, and increased education in regards to the selected field. The last part can come from either state or local government in the form of reviewing their requirements for licensing and educating anyone who would like to purchase a firearm. These requirements should most likely include a recent psychological evaluation confirming that the applicant is not prone to aggressive or erratic behavior before any sale can take place. The right to bear arms is based on the assumption that the bearer is a rational human being, so I don't think that a rationality check prior to granting the right is a violation of the right itself. Each state has its own regulations on firearms licenses, but I don't think that some consensus on this point is too far out in left field. Maybe there could be some minimum requirements for licensing dictated by the federal government with the individual states allowed to require additional training/background checks/etc., but that gets into the territory of limiting states' rights and isn't an ideal solution either.

The other two points are a bit trickier since they have to do more with culture than with laws or regulations. The culture problem is like studying for an exam: if you space it out over a reasonable length of time and tackle it in smaller pieces it won't be too difficult, but if you wait until the night before then you're in for a long night and a lot of stress in exchange for uncertain results. As a whole, the world is a student on a cram session in this regard and barring some kind of grand cultural/intellectual awakening I don't see any easy solution. The only tool that government(s) have to affect a shift in culture is legislation, which is a blunt, inexact tool at best and a hopelessly misguided effort in completely the wrong direction at worst.

The best we can do is try to raise our own children (or eventual children, as the case may be) to be more understanding, contemplative people and try to prepare them as best we can for a world that has lost its common sense along the way. The only other solutions I can come up with are Draconian and rife with potential for corruption and abuse, so I seriously hope that someone else can think of something better.

Theminimanx:On one hand, this guy is clearly biased against games.On the other hand, at least he has the decency to ask for a proper study instead of immediately trying to ban stuff, which is more than I can say for most politicians.

But are we going to get a "proper study" or a proper study?

I'm just saying, many of these "studies" end up being witch hunts anyway.